ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ELECTRIC AND ACOUSTIC DYNAMIC RANGES AND LOUDNESS GROWTH FUNCTIONS: A WITHIN-SUBJECT COMPARISON IN COCHLEAR IMPLANT PATIENTS
Katrien Vermeire 1, 2, 3  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
C. Doppler Laboratory for Active Implantable Systems, Institute of Ion Physics and Applied Physics, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2
University Department for Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650 Edegem, Belgium
3
Current affiliation: University College Thomas More, Jozef De Bomstraat 11, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
4
Duke University, Department of Physics, Physics Building, Science Drive, Box 90305, Durham, NC 27708, U.S.A.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Katrien Vermeire   

Katrien Vermeire, University College Thomas More, Jozef De Bomstraat 11, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium, e-mail: katrien.vermeire@lessius.eu
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2012;2(4):18–25
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
(1) To estimate the dynamic range (DR) for electric stimulation by means of acoustic and electric loudness matching; (2) to characterize loudness growth as a function of electric stimulus amplitude across the DR.

Design:
Prospective study.

Study Design:
Three cochlear implant subjects, with normal hearing in the contralateral ear, participated in this study (ME28, ME-29, ME-30). For each electrode, the upper limit of electric stimulation was loudness matched to three different types of pitch-matched acoustic stimuli. Within the electric DR, the 25%, 50%, and 75% points were loudness matched to the acoustic stimuli to create loudness growth functions.

Results:
ME-28’s DRs for electric stimulation were constant at 17–18 dB across electrodes. ME-29’s and ME-30’s DRs were narrower, at around 10 dB. For ME-28 and ME-30, none of the corresponding DRs for matched acoustic stimuli exceeded 50 dB. Only one of ME-29’s DRs exceeded 35 dB. Loudness growth functions showed a tendency for basal electrodes to have gentler overall slopes. For relatively high proportions of the DR, the three different types of acoustic stimuli tend to have similar loudness growth slopes. However at low levels, the fewer harmonics, the steeper the loudness growth.

Conclusions:
There is qualitative and quantitative agreement but patterns of variation can also be observed.

 
REFERENCES (14)
1.
Boëx CS, Eddington DK, Noel VA et al: Restoration of normal loudness growth for CIS sound coding strategies. Abstract, Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, 1997; 26.
 
2.
Davidson LS, Skinner MW, Holstad BA et al: The effect of instantaneous Input Dynamic Range setting on the speech perception of children with the Nucleus 24 implant. Ear Hear, 2009; 30: 340–49.
 
3.
Dorman MF, Smith L, Parkin JL: Loudness balance between acoustic and electric stimulation by a patient with a multichannel cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 1993; 14: 290–92.
 
4.
Eddington D, Dobelle W, Brackmann D et al: Auditory prosthesis research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1978; 87(Suppl): 1–39.
 
5.
Fu Q-J, Shannon RV: Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on speech recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners. JASA, 1998; 104: 2570–77.
 
6.
Fu Q-J: Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration. Hear Res, 2005; 202: 55–62.
 
7.
Holden LK, Skinner MW, Fourakis MS, Holden TA: Effect of increased IIDR in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18: 777–93.
 
8.
Hoth S: Indication for the need of flexible and frequency specific mapping functions in cochlear implant speech processors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2007; 264: 129–38.
 
9.
Shannon RV: Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res, 1983; 11: 157–89.
 
10.
Simmons FB: Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. Arch Otolaryngol, 1966; 84: 2–54.
 
11.
Van de Heyning P, Vermeire K, Diebl M et al: Incapacitating unilateral tinnitus in single-sided deafness treated by cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 2008; 117: 645–52.
 
12.
Vermeire K, Van de Heyning PH: Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neurootol, 2009; 14: 163–71.
 
13.
Zeng F-G, Shannon RV: Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation. Hear Res, 1992; 60: 231–35.
 
14.
Zeng F-G, Shannon RV: Loudness coding mechanisms inferred from electric stimulation of the human auditory system. Science, 1994; 264: 564–66.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X